Sickness absence rate down to just four days a year for every worker
An estimated 148.9 million working days were lost in the UK because of sickness or injury in 2024, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
The percentage of working hours lost fell by 0.3 percentage points over the year to 2%, said the report.
The sickness absence rate – the percentage of working hours lost because of sickness or injury – was 2.0% in 2024, 0.3 percentage points down on the previous year.
Read more ➡️ https://t.co/ASDXs2K9GA pic.twitter.com/GBxqj4pCtc
— Office for National Statistics (ONS) (@ONS) June 4, 2025
Minor illnesses were the most common reason given for sickness absence in 2024, accounting for almost a third of cases, followed by musculoskeletal problems at 15.5%.
Groups with the highest rates of sickness absence in 2024 included women, older workers, those with long-term health conditions, people working part-time and public sector workers, said the ONS.
It added that time lost averaged 4.4 days per worker in 2024.
Minor illnesses were the most common reason given for sickness absence in 2024, accounting for 30.0% of occurrences, followed by musculoskeletal problems at 15.5%. pic.twitter.com/r3Litl8gbz
— Office for National Statistics (ONS) (@ONS) June 4, 2025
Amanda Walters, director of the Safe Sick Pay campaign, an alliance campaigning for sick pay reform, said: 'The fall in sickness absence may seem a positive development but the figures mask the fact that far too many UK workers regularly go to work when they are too ill.
'We are amongst the least likely to take sick days in Europe as our woeful statutory sick pay system is forcing millions of people to drag themselves into work ill, risking their long term health because they need to pay the bills. This costs the economy billions in lost productivity.
'The Government is fixing one part of the problem by improving sick pay coverage for some lower earners in the employment Bill, but is not doing enough to sort out the sorry state of our sick pay system.
'The weekly rate of sick pay remains just £3 an hour for a full time worker. If we are serious about improving the health of the working age population, the Government needs to stop ignoring the elephant in the room and put statutory sick pay in line with the minimum wage.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
18 minutes ago
- The National
Rural Scots 'face major energy bills hike after RTS meter switch off'
RTS meters, which use long-wave radio signals to switch between cheaper and more expensive electricity rates remotely, are disproportionately common in off-gas-grid and rural areas. A full deactivation of the system was scheduled for June 30. But just 11 days before that deadline, the UK Government paused the planned blanket switch-off in favour of a phased approach, citing the fact that 314,000 households across the UK – including 105,000 in Scotland – were still using the meters. READ MORE: Dr Ron Mould: RTS switch-off will put vulnerable Scots at risk The Scottish Government had raised concerns that the shutdown could disrupt heating and hot water systems for those still relying on RTS meters, while potentially triggering steep hikes in energy costs. However, Shetland resident John Inkster said he is already feeling the impact after being moved off the RTS system by provider EDF Energy. He described the resulting rise in bills as 'unjust' and said it flies in the face of assurances given by Ofgem, the energy regulator. Ofgem has stated that consumers should be left 'no worse off' as a result of switching away from RTS meters. But Inkster said that for islanders like him – living in areas without access to mains gas – the reality is starkly different. 'I think we spend about £4000 a year heating our house at the moment, before the RTS meter changeover,' he said. 'I imagine that might go to £6000. 'You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out that people are going to be completely fleeced here.' READ MORE: John Swinney: Labour are ruling out all options to reduce energy bills Before the switch, Inkster had two meters: one charging 27p per unit of electricity for standard use (lights, appliances, sockets), and another offering a reduced 15p tariff for heating and hot water. Since EDF replaced his system, most of his heating, except for storage heaters and a portion of water heating, is charged at the higher rate. Based on his calculations, the change equates to a 74% increase in costs on around half of his heating and hot water use. That could see his annual bill rise from £4000 to around £5500. 'There are a lot of people who don't understand this who have it in their house, to be honest with you,' he said. 'It is a bit complicated. 'But it doesn't take any kind of a genius at all to work out that customers will be much, much worse off.' He went on: 'It's said people are dying in Scotland in the cold because they can't afford to heat their homes. You hear that, don't you? 'Well, how is this going to affect those statistics? Improve them or make them worse?' Inkster said he was aware of other Shetlanders who had already 'torn panel heaters out of their houses' in response to the soaring cost of using them under the new tariffs. He warned that many affected households might only realise the full extent of the change when their winter energy bills arrive. The Shetlander has enlisted the help of his local MP, LibDem Alistair Carmichael, who has written to EDF chief executive Simone Rossi with his concerns. The LibDem MP for Orkney and Shetland, Alistair Carmichael (Image: UK Parliament/PA Wire) 'Ofgem has stated that energy companies should give equivalent tariffs to RTS customers so that no one is left worse off as a result of switching,' the MP said. 'At best, what EDF is doing goes against the spirit of that commitment – at worst, it looks like an active attempt to evade the new rules. Ofgem and the Government must come down hard on this sly behaviour.' EDF did not respond to the Sunday National's request for comment. A spokesperson for Ofgem said: 'We have made clear to suppliers that we expect them to treat customers fairly – not only in terms of shielding households from unnecessary costs but also offering the same or similar tariffs after their RTS meter has been upgraded. 'It is crucial that customers are protected at every stage of the phased shutdown, and we are spelling out to suppliers key requirements that must be met before an area loses its RTS signal. 'While this carefully managed phaseout process should reassure customers, it remains crucial that these meters are replaced urgently so it's vital to engage with your supplier when offered an appointment.'
The National
18 minutes ago
- The National
Open letter to First Minister on the future for our energy needs
The UK is running away from the hard choices on energy. Its dismissal of ideas like zonal pricing – currently the only scheme yet presented that would allow the UK to maximise renewable energy generation, minimise infrastructure costs like pylons and to reduce fuel poverty while giving communities more incentive to take control of their own local energy generation – has been rightly criticised by you last week in a statement where you called out the UK for not doing enough on energy policy. It was concerning to note, though, that your critique wasn't backed up by much on what you want the UK to actually do instead. Even as you complained about the UK 'ruling out all options to bring down energy bills' by abandoning zonal pricing, I'm not clear if you support it or would bring it in if you had the power to do so. We all know that Scotland's devolved powers in energy are limited and that, right now, you couldn't do something like this, but also missing from your critique was what you plan to do with the powers you do have. Scotland's own devolved energy strategy has been woefully lacking in recent years – from the sell-off of ScotWind at bargain basement prices, through dropping climate targets that were designed to push action ever forwards, to flogging off (sorry, 'encouraging foreign direct investment in') every piece of our renewable energy sector to multinational companies and foreign public energy companies to ensure that everyone in the world can profit from Scotland's energy except us. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: 'Clearances' are not inevitable if the Highlands get investment We can take another path, though. Scotland must ensure that we own our own renewable energy future and the way to do that is by bringing it into public ownership. Here are several ways that you could do it. 1) A National Energy Company This is what most of us think of when we think about 'Scottish public energy', and it's the model that the Welsh Government adopted under the name Ynni Cymru. This is a single national company, owned by the Scottish Government or by Scottish ministers (similar to Scottish Water), that would own, generate and sell energy to consumers. There is a snag to this plan in that the Scotland Act currently prohibits the Scottish Government from 'owning, generating, transmitting or storing' electricity, so if we want the National Energy Company to be based around supplying electricity, then the first thing that the Scottish Government could be doing is mounting a pressure campaign to amend the Act – it puts Scotland in the ridiculous position that it's legal for the Welsh Government to own a wind turbine in Scotland but not the Scottish Government. Until that campaign is successful, there is something you can do. The Act quite specifically bans your Government from owning electricity generators. It does not ban other forms of energy. A National Heat Company based around deploying district heat networks could supply all but the most remote of Scottish households. While this would be a large infrastructure project, it wouldn't be larger than the one required to build the electricity pylons we need if we're going to electrify heat instead and the pipes would have the advantage of being underground and out of sight while ultimately providing heat to homes in a cheap, more efficient and ultimately more future-proof way that the current setup of asking people to buy heat pumps and just hoping that the grid can cope with the demand. 2) Local Electricity Companies So, First Minister, let's say that you're not a fan of campaigning for the devolution of more powers and really want Scotland to be generating electricity. You can't create a National Electricity Company but you can encourage local authorities to set up their own Local Electricity Company. Conceivably, the 32 councils could even jointly own one National Electricity Company – the Scotland Act merely bans the Scottish Government from owning the company. In many ways, this would be an even better idea than the Scottish Government doing it. Government borrowing powers are far too limited and you'd need to campaign for more borrowing powers to get the scale of action required to build the infrastructure we need – but councils have a trick up their sleeves. They are allowed to borrow basically as much money as they like so long as the investment the borrowing allows brings in enough of a return to pay back the loan. This is very likely how Shetland Council will finance its plan to connect the islands via tunnels – the construction would be paid for via tolls on traffic. Energy, as we know, is very profitable indeed so there should be absolutely no issue with councils being able to pay back their loans and then to use the revenue from their energy generation to subsidise local households against fuel poverty and to support public services. If we want to go even more local than this, then councils and perhaps the Scottish National Investment Bank could support communities to own their own energy. We've seen multiple times that community ownership generates many times as much local wealth building – as well as skills and jobs - than the current model of private ownership plus paltry 'community benefit funds'. 3) A National Mutual Energy Company This is another national-scale energy company that the Scottish Government could launch but in this case wouldn't own or control. Instead, the 'National Mutual' would be owned by the people of Scotland. In this model, every adult resident of Scotland would be issued one share in the company. They wouldn't be able to sell it and they'd have to surrender it if they ever stop living in Scotland, but other than this, it would be much like owning a share in companies like Co-op. The company would be run as any other commercial company and would be beholden not to the Government but to its shareholders – us. We'd jointly decide future energy strategy and even potentially have a say in how much of the company's operating surpluses are invested in future developments or distributed to shareholders (again, us) as a dividend. READ MORE: The Chancellor's words don't line up with her actions This model would be particularly suited to very large energy developments that cut across local authority or even national borders or to help develop offshore assets. Imagine ScotWind had been owned by the people of Scotland, instead of being flogged off to multinational companies in an auction that had a maximum bidding price attached. Conclusion First Minister, I applaud you for keeping up some sense of pressure on the UK Government on energy. As we make the necessary transitions required of us under our obligations to end the climate emergency, this is one of the sectors of Scotland that will change the most. It's vital that we get this transition right, or not only will Scotland see yet another generation of energy potential squandered in the same way that the coal and oil eras were, we'll see Scottish households bear the weight of others profiting from that transition while we still experience crushing levels of poverty and economic vulnerability. The UK Government may be ruling out all of their options on energy but that doesn't mean that you need to do the same. We don't need to wait until independence – as vital as it is – or to wait until Westminster gets its act together – which may or may not happen. We – you – have options too. It's time to take them. Yours, expectantly …
The National
18 minutes ago
- The National
Angus Robertson's secret Israel meeting minutes revealed
ON a warm summer's night last August, John Swinney took to the stage at the Edinburgh International Book Festival for a fireside chat with former Welsh first minister Mark Drakeford. Two of the most seasoned veterans of the devolution era, Swinney and Drakeford talked of the importance of 'collaborative' politics. Then a piercing cry rang through the auditorium. 'Your party is mingling with genocidal deputy ambassadors,' a young woman shouted. The event was swiftly ended, and the protester hustled out. She might well have been disappointed to see the First Minister on stage. Until days before, the man whom she accused of 'mingling' with the Israeli government, Angus Robertson, had been due to appear instead. The photograph of Robertson with the beaming Daniela Grudsky, Israel's deputy ambassador to the UK, had that month rocked the Scottish Government and created a schism within the SNP. READ MORE: 'Time to take action': What it was like at the national Palestine demo in Edinburgh Robertson faced loud calls to quit his role as the Cabinet Secretary for External Affairs. Critics argued the meeting was a 'breach of trust' when Israel stood accused of grave breaches of international law in Gaza, and with its prime minister then under investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Israel denies claims it is committing war crimes or perpetrating genocide in Gaza, and rejects the jurisdiction of the ICC, which issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu on war crimes charges in November 2024. A year on, despite the intense furore around the meeting, the public still knows little on how it came about or what was discussed. Now The Ferret can shed new light on the affair, revealing details of previously withheld internal emails, WhatsApp chats and partial minutes of the meeting. They show ministers, advisers and officials across Swinney's government were entangled. And we can reveal that while publicly stating that the 'UK is in danger of being complicit in killing innocent civilians', behind the scenes, the Scottish Government tried to set up an earlier meeting with Swinney and the ambassador and was talking itself up as a 'critical friend' of Israel. In response to this story, Robertson told The Ferret that under the 'abhorrent circumstances' Gazans face 'at the hands of the Israeli government', the Scottish Government is 'unequivocal that it would not be appropriate to meet with the Israeli government' until 'real progress has been made towards peace'. Our findings come after a 10-month freedom of information (FoI) battle, which involved challenges to the Scottish Information Commissioner and claims from the Scottish Government that releasing details of the meeting could damage UK-Israeli relations and even be seen as 'antisemitic'. Swinney 'actively sought a meeting' with Israeli ambassador On May 8, 2024, John Swinney took office as Scotland's First Minister. For his predecessor, Humza Yousaf, the Palestinian cause had been close to home – his own parents-in-law had been visiting relatives in Gaza when the Israeli bombardment began in the wake of the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, which killed about 1200 people. More than 250 hostages were also taken. Swinney quickly faced criticism over a perceived lack of action on the issue. The Scottish Greens called on the new First Minister 'to demonstrate that Scotland's solidarity with the people of Palestine extends to action, not just words' and, in response, the Government reiterated Yousaf's call for a ceasefire and for the UK Government to ban arms exports to Israel. Swinney followed up with a tweet on May 27, stating that the 'humanitarian catastrophe' in Gaza was 'one of the greatest moral issues of our time'. But secret emails show that just a week later, on June 3, a Scottish Government official emailed the Israeli Embassy, looking to speak to 'someone urgently to make arrangements' for a meeting between Swinney and Israeli ambassador Tzipi Hotovely (below), while she was in Scotland. The embassy's Israel-Scotland affairs officer advised this visit was no longer going ahead because of 'sudden security threats', but that the ambassador was 'eager to meet with the First Minister virtually'. Later that day, the embassy emailed a 'list of attendees' for a meeting which included Hotovely, the embassy's head of civil society Hodaya Avzada, and the Israel Scotland affairs officer. Some other names are redacted. Asked about these exchanges, the Scottish Government said the meeting referenced in the 'list of attendees' did not go ahead and no meetings with representatives of the Israeli government took place before August 8. But Scottish Labour MSP Mercedes Villalba argued this was evidence Swinney's government had 'actively sought a meeting with a representative of a state whose prime minister is now wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity'. On July 30, a Scottish Government official's phone pinged with a WhatsApp message from embassy official Avzada. 'Hope you're well?' she asked. 'We should get back to you today re DCM [deputy chief of mission] visit,' the official replied. 'Apols for delay.' Discussions had progressed, and a trip to Scotland was being arranged for the deputy ambassador – or DCM – Daniela Grudsky. 'It is next week and the schedule is filling,' Avzada said. Less than two hours later, an official emailed Angus Robertson, copying in Swinney, recommending that he meet with Grudsky – and warning of 'sensitivities' over the Gaza war. Azvada asked via WhatsApp if there was 'any chance we could meet' Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes as well, but was told: 'FM isn't available, so Mr Robertson is the right interlocutor.' 'Transparency takes up so much time' As soon as the meeting was firmed up for August 8, discussions turned to communications management. 'We'd normally issue a short statement for transparency's sake,' the Scottish Government official told Avzada. 'But let me know if you have any security considerations, esp around timing.' It was agreed there would be no announcement of the meeting until the Monday following, August 12. Avzada made sure to double-check that the embassy could issue the tweet that would ultimately ignite the whole controversy, and was told: 'Yeah that's fine.' READ MORE: 55 arrested in Westminster as protests grow over Palestine Action ban The Scottish official then told Avzada: 'You'll be aware we are usually inundated with freedom of information requests. Practically every meeting our ministers have is FOI'd. We redact sensitive information, but the bar is high, and we have to justify it. The FOIs are usually inspired by comms but if we don't issue something, we're criticised for being secretive!' The official added: 'Transparency is obviously a good thing, but it takes up such a lot of our time.' In her official response, Avzada said the embassy did 'not consent' to the release of information about meetings, 'in order to allow the fruitful and open discourse between Israel and the United Kingdom'. This would later be echoed, almost word for word, by the Scottish Government in its reasoning for denying The Ferret's FOI requests. Subsequent emails show that the Scottish Government provided further updates on FOI requests to the Israeli Embassy after the meeting, which reiterated its position that no information should be released. Amnesty International told The Ferret that it appeared the Scottish Government already had 'one eye' on the challenges that requests for transparency would create for them, even before the meeting took place. Meanwhile, Talat Yaqoob, an equality campaigner and researcher who has worked in the Scottish Parliament, said it was 'extraordinary that a foreign government would get any say over what the Scottish public is permitted to know about the work of its own elected officials'. 'Freedom of information law exists to enable accountability – it is not something to attempt to circumvent or over-complicate,' she added. The Scottish Government said it had complied fully with the Scottish Information Commissioner and pointed out that information can be withheld under freedom of information law if it could substantially prejudice relations between the UK and another country. 'Critical friends'? After public anger had erupted around the meeting, Swinney tweeted on August 14 that it had been 'accepted on the basis it would provide an opportunity to convey our consistent position on the killing and suffering of innocent civilians in the region'. But the Scottish Government had already put out a statement saying that the attendees had also discussed 'areas of mutual interest, including culture, renewable energy, and engaging the country's respective diasporas'. In the redacted minutes released to The Ferret, much of the section on 'Israel/Scotland relations' is blacked out. But the minutes do state: 'The Scottish Government's position remained that the Palestinian people had the right to self-determination and that a secure Israel should be able to live in peace and security. There was value in dialogue between Scotland and Israel as critical friends.' While Swinney publicly referenced the 'killing and suffering of civilians', the minutes suggest that Robertson adopted a more reserved tone with Grudsky, noting that 'every effort must be taken to reduce civilian casualties'. MSP Villalba claimed the minutes showed the Scottish Government's private attitude to Israel was 'quite different' to its public stance. She added that her constituents were organising weekly protests against what they see as UK complicity in the war in Gaza. They would be asking whether Robertson still believed Scotland could be 'critical friends' with a country currently facing genocide allegations at the International Court of Justice, Villalba claimed. In a 'profound apology' issued to delegates at the SNP conference on September 1, after heavy criticism from within the party, Robertson said one of the Government's priorities for the meeting was to express its support for an 'end of UK arms being sent to Israel'. But there is no mention of this in the minutes released. Yaqoob said it was a failure of leadership that arms sales do not appear to have been addressed. She said the apparent omission was a 'dereliction of duty' given the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The aftermath At 2.37pm on August 12, the Scottish Government posted about the meeting on its international division's Twitter/X account. Barely anyone noticed – perhaps unsurprising, given the account only has 4500 followers. At 5.36pm, Grudsky posted her own now infamous tweet, complete with the picture of the pair by an art deco fireplace in St Andrew's House. She said they had discussed 'the unique commonalities between' Scotland and Israel and 'emphasised the urgent need to bring back our 115 hostages'. There was no mention of a ceasefire call. 'Looking forward to co-operating in the fields of technology, culture and renewable energy,' Grudsky added. Over the next few days, dissent began to bubble in the SNP ranks. Backbench MSPs Kevin Stewart, Christine Grahame and Emma Roddick all put their heads above the parapet. On August 14, Swinney issued his statement on Twitter/X, but Robertson himself laid low. A Scottish Government official emailed the Edinburgh Book Festival to give 'a quick heads up that FM will now be attending' the event with Drakeford – instead of Robertson. On the morning of Monday, August 19 – with the 'ongoing public controversy' having continued to rage over the weekend – Swinney called Robertson in for a meeting. 'They discussed the history of the issue and noted the public remarks of MSPs, MPs and commentators,' records released to The Ferret reveal. 'They reflected on the need to address the concerns raised by the meeting around the Scottish Government's position on the relationship with the Israeli government. In particular, they noted the need to be more clear that the Scottish Government did not believe that 'normal' relations with the Israeli government were currently possible given the events in Gaza and the position of the ICC.' They also agreed it was time for Robertson to break his silence – and issue his original apology. This was circulated among officials and redrafted by international relations deputy director John Primrose, and Swinney's special adviser, Jack Middleton. In the wake of the controversy, the Government ruled out further meetings with Israeli diplomats until progress has been made in Gaza peace talks. But arms firms supplying Israel continue to receive subsidies from the Scottish Government. It is only thanks to repeated FOI requests from The Ferret and other media outlets that this information has entered the public domain. And there are details of the meeting between Grudsky and Robertson, which remain hidden from public view, including the discussions they held about the other topics which are redacted in the minutes released. 'It is squarely in the public interest to have absolute clarity on whether the cabinet secretary presented a strong challenge to the deputy ambassador over war crimes and violations of international law in Gaza when they met,' said Amnesty's Liz Thomson. 'Just months before that meeting took place, Amnesty asked Robertson for a clear framework on how human rights considerations inform international engagement and raised concerns that the Scottish Government's action wasn't matching its rhetoric. Such guidance is clearly needed to inform all external affairs activity.' Labour's Villalba was more direct. 'We need answers – and we need them now,' she said. READ MORE: RECAP: Activists defy Labour with illegal pro-Palestine T-shirts at Edinburgh demo In a statement provided to The Ferret, Robertson, said: 'Close to 60,000 people have been killed in Gaza [some estimates say the death toll is higher] – many more are now being left to starve at the hands of the Israeli government. 'Civilians who queue to access what little humanitarian aid is permitted to enter Gaza are frequently shot at and killed by Israeli Defence Forces. 'The rhetoric of Israeli politicians has become increasingly extreme in recent months. 'Under such abhorrent circumstances, the Scottish Government is unequivocal that it would not be appropriate to meet with the Israeli government. 'This will remain our position until real progress has been made towards peace and Israel co-operates fully with its international obligations on the investigation of genocide and war crimes.' At the Book Festival that night, Swinney said that devolution had 'strengthened the self-confidence of Scotland'. Over two decades of self-government, Scotland has become more visible on the international stage. But to critics, the Robertson affair has exposed serious gaps in transparency and accountability about how – and with whom – Scotland does diplomacy. The Embassy of Israel in London did not respond to requests for a comment.
